OBJECTIVE: to quantify head and neck injuries in known adult victims of intimate-partner violence (IPV). DESIGN: retrospective chart review. SETTING: sexual assault and domestic violence program in a southeastern Ontario hospital. METHODS: all subjects over the age of 16 years consenting for evaluation by a domestic violence nurse from August 2004 until February 2009 were eligible for inclusion. Subjects for which no physical injury was documented were excluded. Data were extracted from body maps and surveys completed by a specially trained domestic violence nurse. Demographic data, mechanisms of injury, relationship to the assailant, and a history of IPV from the same assailant were collected from the survey. The type and anatomic location of the injury were collected from body maps. Injuries were categorized into six larger categories for analysis according to general anatomic area and multiplicity of areas involved. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: anatomic location of the injury. RESULTS: one hundred eight visits were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data on 657 injuries were recorded. The frequency of any head and neck injury was significantly greater than no head and neck injury (p < .001). In subjects experiencing multiple areas of injury, head and neck injuries were significantly more common than not (p < .001). In subjects experiencing only one area of injury, head and neck injuries were more common than lower extremity injuries alone (p = .003) and trunk injuries alone (p = .033) but not significantly more common than upper extremity injuries (p = .102). CONCLUSIONS: head and neck injuries are more common than not in known adult victims of IPV.
OBJECTIVE: to quantify head and neck injuries in known adult victims of intimate-partner violence (IPV). DESIGN: retrospective chart review. SETTING: sexual assault and domestic violence program in a southeastern Ontario hospital. METHODS: all subjects over the age of 16 years consenting for evaluation by a domestic violence nurse from August 2004 until February 2009 were eligible for inclusion. Subjects for which no physical injury was documented were excluded. Data were extracted from body maps and surveys completed by a specially trained domestic violence nurse. Demographic data, mechanisms of injury, relationship to the assailant, and a history of IPV from the same assailant were collected from the survey. The type and anatomic location of the injury were collected from body maps. Injuries were categorized into six larger categories for analysis according to general anatomic area and multiplicity of areas involved. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: anatomic location of the injury. RESULTS: one hundred eight visits were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data on 657 injuries were recorded. The frequency of any head and neck injury was significantly greater than no head and neck injury (p < .001). In subjects experiencing multiple areas of injury, head and neck injuries were significantly more common than not (p < .001). In subjects experiencing only one area of injury, head and neck injuries were more common than lower extremity injuries alone (p = .003) and trunk injuries alone (p = .033) but not significantly more common than upper extremity injuries (p = .102). CONCLUSIONS: head and neck injuries are more common than not in known adult victims of IPV.